Most software does. Unless you're a content creator almost everyone is exclusively using a browser. Chrome is the #1 browser and it saturates 8 threads easy. Clock an 8 core to it's lowest and check CPU utilization.
And it looks like CNL Y STILL exists
https://twitter.com/TUM_APISAK/status/996706570552524800?s=19
Ooh, interesting, although with no GPU that would be kind of silly
Ooh, interesting, although with no GPU that would be kind of silly.
Where in that post is GPU mentioned?Is it possible that CNL Y is the 2+2 part that was mentioned in the Intel documents?(assuning this one is active) otherwise it wouldn't make sense to push out
I was referring to Official Intel documents for Meltdown and Spectre mitigations mentioned a 2+2 CNL (which this could be because you don't put a dGPU onto a fanless laptop most of the time).Where in that post is GPU mentioned?
I have no idea who would use it. Maybe one or two OEMs.Interesting clock speed and interesting naming. It would seem again to be a low volume part the
Yes I realize that, but I was wondering why jpiniero was saying it had no iGPU.I was referring to Official Intel documents for Meltdown and Spectre mitigations mentioned a 2+2 CNL (which this could be because you don't put a dGPU onto a fanless laptop most of the time).
Yes I realize that, but I was wondering why jpiniero was saying it had no iGPU.
That’s why I was wondering if that might be TDP up.A 1.5 Ghz base is still better than what Apple is offering with the Retina Macbook for instance, although the turbo would have to be there as well.
That’s why I was wondering if that might be TDP up.
It’s clearly listed as an m3 too, not an i7.
The optimist could claim it was evidence of a significant clock speed boost but I’m not optimistic enough to think that, esp. for a real volume part.
Maybe I was a bit hasty, since the 8121U doesn't have the GPU and yields are obvs terrible. I guess the question would be what Intel would do with the very small % of dies that actually get through with the GPU usable, even if partially disabled. I kind of assume that even now that % is close to zero though.
A 1.5 Ghz base is still better than what Apple is offering with the Retina Macbook for instance, although the turbo would have to be there as well.
They’d be more likely to add A12. It benches way faster than Intel Y series and i3-8121U.There is no way apple would accept this junk. You can basically write off any new MacBooks in 2018 unless Apple switches to AMD (unlikely).
They’d be more likely to add A12. It benches way faster than Intel Y series and i3-8131U.
That’s why I said “add”, not “switch”.Too early for that. They would have to announce that they were moving to ARM first, give developers time to get their apps ported. But in the long term, yes, that is where they are going.
No the boost clock listed is 1510 MHz, which is 10 MHz higher than base. So effectively the same and clearly wrong.From the picture posted on twitter, it looks like it has a boost clock of 2.2 GHz, but who knows if that is the actual max boost or not.
No the boost clock listed is 1510 MHz, which is 10 MHz higher than base. So effectively the same and clearly wrong.
i3-8121U turbos up to 3.2 GHz, which is the same as the KBL-Y i5-7Y54. So it would seem that something like 3.0-3.4 GHz would be a reasonable target for a CNL-Y m3.KL-Y M3 chips turbo-ed up to 3.0, so would we expect better than that from the CL-Y M3 chips?
Nah, that wouldn't make sense, and it would suck.Or have they possibly gone with a higher base clock and no turbo?
That seems like 10 nm (not 10 nm+) since we know from Intel's own marketing documents that Intel's use of 10 nm was lower performance than 14 nm++. Hence the lower turbo and higher temperatures.https://ark.intel.com/compare/137977,136863
With the 8121u vs 8130U, we get a lower boost clock, more PCIE lanes, more memory bandwidth, LPDDR4/X support, and no igp.
Package size is slightly larger, and the temp is 5C higher.
That seems like 10 nm (not 10 nm+) since we know from Intel's own marketing documents that Intel's use of 10 nm was lower performance than 14 nm++. Hence the lower turbo and higher temperatures.
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/11722/kaizad-mistry-2017-manufacturing(1)_29.png
Intel doesn't publish that info anymore, so you'd have to test the chip, I guess. Published info is 3.2 single core.So, on Wikipedia, a user added that the i3-8121U has 3.1 GHz all-core frequency. Is there an independent source to verify?